Wilson v. United Manufacturers Supplies, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wilson v. United Manufacturers Supplies, Inc.

906 So. 2d 355, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10933, 2005 WL 1651174

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 15, 2005

DocketNo. 1D04-3925

StatusPublished

This text of 906 So. 2d 355 (Wilson v. United Manufacturers Supplies, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilson v. United Manufacturers Supplies, Inc., 906 So. 2d 355, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10933, 2005 WL 1651174 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The facts are undisputed in this workers’ compensation case. Those undisputed facts establish as a matter of law that, at the time of the accident, claimant was in the course and scope of his employment. See, e.g., Johns v. State, Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 485 So.2d 857, 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (holding that an employee injured on the employer’s premises some 20 to 30 minutes before her normal starting time was within the course and scope of her employment, quoting from 1A Arthur Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 21.6 (1985)); Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Akin, 533 So.2d 829, 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (on rehearing) (holding that an employee injured on the employer’s premises some 30 minutes before his normal starting time was within the course and scope of his employment, citing Johns with approval); Perez v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 673 So.2d 938, 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that an employee injured on the employer’s premises after she had clocked out at the end of the day was within the course and scope of her employment, citing Johns and Akin, with approval); Lanham v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 868 So.2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (discussing the personal comfort rule). Accordingly, we reverse the order, which reached the contrary result, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

ERVIN, WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The facts are undisputed in this workers’ compensation case. Those undisputed facts establish as a matter of law that, at the time of the accident, claimant was in the course and scope of his employment. See, e.g., Johns v. State, Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 485 So.2d 857, 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (holding that an employee injured on the employer’s premises some 20 to 30 minutes before her normal starting time was within the course and scope of her employment, quoting from 1A Arthur Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 21.6 (1985)); Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Akin, 533 So.2d 829, 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (on rehearing) (holding that an employee injured on the employer’s premises some 30 minutes before his normal starting time was within the course and scope of his employment, citing Johns with approval); Perez v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 673 So.2d 938, 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that an employee injured on the employer’s premises after she had clocked out at the end of the day was within the course and scope of her employment, citing Johns and Akin, with approval); Lanham v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 868 So.2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (discussing the personal comfort rule). Accordingly, we reverse the order, which reached the contrary result, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

ERVIN, WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

906 So. 2d 355, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10933, 2005 WL 1651174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-united-manufacturers-supplies-inc-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack